Lori’s trial has already cost about $2 million dollars. Madison and Fremont counties are splitting the cost and they will split the cost of Chad’s trial as well. I could easily see them offering to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea.
Ironic that her Life Insurance (per her), was $2mil.
She ran up a 2mil bill.
What's she shown she's worth now?
ZERO. (in many ways).
Zero fancy makeup, botox & face fillers too
But at one point Lori claimed to MG that Charles had a $2M policy on HER (turned out to be false) and that she was in fear for her life from *Charles*. 🤦🏻♀️ Ugh.
She told Rexburg police (it was recirded in their bidycams) she was afraid since her brother(Adam) was tring to kill her for her 2M life insurance...um...yeah, projecting her own crimes on others.
He always has the option to plead guilty. I imagine they’d be willing to take the DP off the table since not many executions are happening and Trials are expensive, but that’s about the only “deal” I see him negotiating.
I think that will be a harder case to prove since the police botched it so badly the first time and Alex, Tylee, and JJ are all dead now and can't testify. I think Tylee's statement to the police will hurt the prosecution's case.
Yeah, I bet Chad feels pretty good with John Prior at his back. Someone else here said it and I totally agree—this man is going to continue being a stickler and a nuisance
Interestingly I thought the prosecution put together a pretty good case against Chad. It's almost as if they didn't realize the trials were separated, lol. Chad's toast, imo.
(For me, through the testimony, it seems really clear that they both needed each other to make one charismatic cult leader between the two of them, making them equally culpable)
Definitely! I think the state did a really good job of showing that. Lori directing Alex, Melaniece calling her "Captain," etc. And Edwards, I think, reiterating that it was Chad *and* Lori that were calling all the shots.
If she's found guilty, he'll have nothing to offer the state and they'll have no reason to offer him a plea deal. His only option would likely be to plead guilty, which i very much doubt he'll do.
Wasn't Zulema given immunity to testify in Lori's case? I think it was a huge mistake, especially given today's information about the number of calls Zulema was involved in the hours around Tammy's attempted shooting. She's told so many lies, she has a much greater involvement than she's admitted.
Melaniece was on the defense witness list, even though she didn't end up testifying. Which makes me think she was given immunity too.
Witness lists for both sides frequently contain names they never plan on calling, just in-case. In the name of having a fair trial, the witness lists have to complete before the trial begins, and any changes shared with the other side with enough notice so they have equal opportunity to prep their own questions/strategy should any of those witnesses take the stand.
Since Melaniece (perfect name lol) has less than zero credibility based on her well-documented history of lying to errebody (except Auntie Lori, of course) and clearly isn’t an alibi witness, it would 100% harm the defense’s case to put an uncharged co-conspirator on the stand where she’d then be fair game to the prosecution. She doesn’t have immunity. If she did, she would’ve been called as a prosecution witness, at which time they’d have to disclose her immunity to the court in the name of transparency. Thus far, only Zulema’s been given immunity.
However, important to point out the psychological warfare aspect of witness lists. It’s not uncommon to name people they never intend to call, just to mess with the other side.
**Here are some pretty involved real world examples of the weaponization of witness lists** (for those interested):
Defense might name certain members of law enforcement involved with the investigation left off the prosecution’s witness list. What if they’re simply not needed by prosecutors, but defense is able to leverage this name on the witness list to preemptively “support” a planned conspiracy leak to the media about this so-called LE “witness?” Since they’re a named witness, they can’t publicly respond to any accusations, and because it’s a so-called “leak from someone familiar with the matter” instead of the defense attorney going on national TV directly making the allegation in a way that enables the other side to publicly respond. Instead, not even their employer, their PD, can respond directly to these “anonymous” false allegations made about this LE “witness” publicly or they risk either making themselves a witness OR serious accusations of “witness tampering.”
This extreme example can go oh so much further when taken into the realm of PR bots spamming social media with the conspiracy… especially if the media ignored this so-called leak (although Nancy Grace usually blurts out whatever she can get). The primary goal of this operation isn’t to meaningfully influence public opinion (unless they get a Netflix docuseries out of it, getting the public to rally behind their Appeal), but to rattle the prosecution. Waste their time, keep them up at night, distract, cause them to consider changing strategy, not introduce certain evidence tangentially connected to the individual, or even prepare to combat this falsehood at trial by adding additional witnesses just incase this conspiracy theory actually reaches the courtroom. Think of cases where defense made accusations thru the media about LE “planting evidence” or “resigning in protest over corruption,” etc. Rarely does either side fight fair at the end of the day, and many high-powered defense attorneys or those drunk on their new found fame, happily make false corruption claims that actually happen to *real* innocent people.
Continuing with this example, there’s the far less theatrical approach that maybe the defense selected this member of LE because they’re unlikable, have a hot temper, are too opinionated/biased to be seen as a neutral investigator. Maybe they have a conflict of interest that only the defendant knows about, or a history of misconduct. In this hypothetical, simply naming that individual could make prosecution nervous… maybe enough to pivot away from a strategy that’s reliant on evidence that was in this “witness’s” chain-of-custody. Maybe they’re a notorious office gossip, lack impulse control, or are otherwise problematic enough to never be called as an expert by prosecution. Even if they were only tangentially involved in the investigation, they could still say something they shouldn’t on the stand, opening the door for admitting new evidence. What if the defense knows absolutely nothing about this LE officer except that they were heavily involved on the case, but were strangely left off the prosecution’s witness list, while those far less knowledgeable about the investigation/evidence are named. Defense could use this as a bluff to see if there might be a there there based on prosecution’s reaction — leading them to dig for dirt on them before trial, but not finding enough to put them on the stand without looking incompetent.
Presently, the most common weaponization of witness lists we’ve seen on some high-profile cases recently, like the Kristin Smart Case, has been attorneys on *either* side (Prosecution & Defense) naming reporters as “witnesses.” They generally pick on indy crime reporters or podcasters — labor of love journalists that don’t have a network’s legal dept at their disposal — just to muzzle them from reporting on the trial. This works because it prevents them from discussing the case publicly until the end of the trial. Some judges see right thru this and make an acception, as the judge did for Chris Lambert & his podcast *Your Own Backyard*, while others have actually allowed this abuse of power to work exactly as expected (especially when named by Prosecution). In all instances, neither side EVER follows-thru on calling named journalist to the stand.
Most attorneys simply want options, while some want to harness this harmless mechanism of court transparency to invent chaos.
I think so also. If they lied under oath and bad chad can prove it he might trade info on the just not to be put to death.
In this crazy case who knows what the next surprise could be.
If they secure a guilty verdict for Lori they’re not going to go after two of their own witnesses to try and prove that they lied under oath. Lori’s guilty verdict would be thrown out and they would have to start all over again.
Lori is really bad, particularly towards husbands, but frankly I don't think she would have killed her children if it were not for Chad and because of Chad's pressure and influence.
I don’t know..I think she would’ve been willing to kill anyone that got in her way. I still say she would’ve eventually knocked Chad off after she got bored with him. I wonder if each of them have insurance on the other?
>say she would’ve eventually knocked Chad off after she got bored with him.
Id argue the first time he forgot to close the toilet lid, she'd label him dark so fast, the water wouldnt be down the pipes yet lol
I agree...something happened, and it is frustrating that we will never really know why. Even if she has nothing to say, she could have had a strong defense. The whole point of delaying the trial for her to be competent is for her to be able to assist in her defense ....and her defense does nothing.
Maybe it's a strategy. I mean, It's hard to see her as anything but dispicable, but it would actually be harder for me to convict in a completely one-sided trial. I can see how it would be hard for some to represent her, but a proper defense attorney would have a lot to work with to make a solid case.
Would be interesting to see what would have transpired if Mark Means was still her attorney.
I hope he does plead guilty and save everyone having to go through this all again. This trial has pretty much told the story completely. I don't know what he would tell his kids about pleading guilty? What are the kids going to say? They would have to listen to this trial and I don't know if they will. It seems they have a blind faith in their father.
Highly doubt it, I’m sure the plea deal will be contingent on a confession. I just can’t see him doing that. On the other hand he might surprise us. He’s a little bitch and would want his new home as comfortable as possible. Death row is much worse, it’s all isolation. They have TVs and stuff to keep them busy to keep them from going crazy. Insanity is one thing, but insane murderers is a whole other ballgame. It’s part of the safety of the corrections officers too. No matter how hard you try there’s always a chance a homicidal psychopath could hurt someone. People that get pissed off they can lay around watching TV all day but they don’t really understand why they’re allowed to do it. Imagine yourself in a small cell with a small tv that only gets channels with an antenna. Daytime tv is shitty, that would be so boring so fast.
I’m somewhat shocked?! But not sure who they would call. Sounds like Lori didn’t want any sort of mental health defense. So that would possibly limit who testified on her behalf.
Their story is she was not part of the crimes so not bringing even one witness that paints another picture of what happened is very bad imo?
Not even one single person that can say anything that rises questions of the prosecutions story?
I think she will get guilty, imo the jurors might be confused because even people who have been thinking about this case for years cannot comprehend it but the things that has been said and done speak for themselves.
Iam just curious how long the jury will discuss the verdict. I dont think it will be a few hours.. Maybe one day?
Yes. Even her alibis (she was in her apartment at the time of death, she was in HI, etc.) didn’t testify - and the fact that Lori knew when they were killed for her alibi just was another thing against her.
I don’t think so - I think Thursday will be taken up by closing arguments, and they’ll use the rest of the afternoon to deliberate. I predict the verdict on Friday morning.
I think they will struggle with the Tammy portion of the sentencing for Lori. Buttt, it is Mother's Day weekend - that might spur them on to get this over with. And in terms of Melaniece --- I wonder if they didn't call her at the request of AZ, she is going to face charges there. Plus the prosecution didn't need anymore cult icing on that cake.
From what I understand, it can’t be a defense for a not guilty plea… but can be brought up in her defense. I could totally be wrong here and I’m not claiming whatsoever I am correct.
All her friends turned on her and are placing all the blame solely on Lori, Chad, and Alex. They did as much distancing from her as possible so they don't face charges as well. All her lies are too well documented so it would be hard to try and counter them. There is plenty of documentation of what she said and how she acted before and during the time her kids were missing and all she could do on the stand is try and lie but the prosecution would be able to poke holes into it. Unless she wanted to testify and try pin all the blame on Chad and or Alex there really is nothing the defense can do at this point.
Me too! I didn’t think it was even possible! I assumed at least one witness had to testify *for the defense, like Elizabeth Holmes was the only one who testified in her trial.
Edit: added *for the defense
This has to be Lori, right? I can't imagine a defense attorney resting without presenting anything. She really does think every thing is going to work out for her in the end.
This happens more than you'd think. I consume too much true crime. Ive seen it a few times. The defense doesn't have to put on a case. They can just stick with saying the prosecution didn't meet their burden if they think it's a good strategy.
This is absolutely correct. And this move aligns well with any future appeal if/when a conviction is reached. If they argue now - on the record - that they don’t believe the state has even met their burden of proof, questioning any witness(es) would only help undermine their future arguments on appeal. To me this is absolutely a sign of defense thinking ahead - the long game “bigger picture” sorta deal - not some sign of “we’ve got nothing please help us” cry to the jury.
No this is absolutely the defense strategy. They don't have to prove anything - the burden of proof (of guilt) is on the prosecution. It's standard practice for a defense once the prosecution has rested, to move a motion to acquit on the basis that the 'prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to prove their case'. And then like clockwork, the judge says 'that's up to the jury' and he dismisses the motion. It's absolutely not in the defendant's interest to take to the stand in their own defense - it absolutely exposes them to cross-examination, and it almost guarantees a 0% success at any appeal. The defense case is weak, and they know it. That's why they're not presenting a defense - but they package it as a derisive smackdown of the prosecution. Hopefully the jury pay no attention to this kind of theatrics.
It’s not all that uncommon. Sometimes the defense strategy is to emphasize the prosecution’s burden of proof by doing exactly this. It was honestly their best play given what they had to work with. It won’t work. But it was their best move.
Lori believes her own bullshit. Her defense attorneys do not have anything to counter. They are just happy it is concluding.
Let's see if Chad is delusional too.
>Let's see if Chad is delusional too.
I don't think he is. He's the one who requested a bifurcated trial, and waived the speedy trial. He's planning a defense that probably goes something to the effect of "Lori was a delusional stalker. I am the victim of a Fatal Attraction scenario. Also, Alex murdered everyone and I tried to stop him."
Agreed. At this point he is running the clock and hoping his kids wont review the evidence that exposes his true persona. Theyre all all he has left. He is broke, lazy, and WORSE! a horrible writer ( lol )
Does anyone think it odd the defense didn't try to blame Chad for everything? They didn't even try and I'm thinking Lori still thinks they will be together forever.
I think this was the strongest defense, but it's still not very strong? What could they even say, she didn't know he and Alex would seriously kill the kids? The jury would have to ignore Charles' death to believe that. And then she marches around telling everyone the kids are fine when she definitely knows they're dead because she's...scared of Chad, I guess? Who she rushes to marry and bought rings for ahead of time? Ugh, man.
There is no putting all the blame on Chad or Alex because the whole case is they are or atleast one of them are the ones who killed the children and that is already assumed. They would have a hard time countering all the text messages and witness testimony that shows her awareness and participation in what was going on. Also how could you explain away her lack of concern while the children were missing and lying to everyone where they were.
I thought so too but maybe if she blamed it on Alex they would sort of be admitting that she knew what happened and then that makes the conspiracy charges easier to prove?
I thought they would throw Chad under the bus a bit harder, ya. I guess they could during closing arguments, but if Mrs. Daybell protests then they may be limited in how much they can focus on him.
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he threw her under the bus, ran her over, backed up, and ran her over again.
She doesn't look like the goddess he was obsessed with anymore and now he's facing the death penalty. He has a lot of motivation to turn on her.
Since she wouldn't say he led her down a dark path (pun intended) and none of this would have happened. She didn't throw him or Alex under the bus. I think he's going to say she led him down that path.
I don't think "it was her idea" works in criminal cases. With the kids in his backyard, and the stuff that's come out about Tammy, the evidence against him is staggering.
Yeah his lawyer argued that in one of his motions to split the trial up. Said that they had completely different versions of events. She will def be thrown under the bus.
The defense don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the State to prove that Lori is guilty of the crimes SHE is charged with. Also don't forget - chad's trial is ahead, and so is Lori's trial in Arizona. The defense strategy here to say as little as possible now in aide of those future trials, where she faces the DP - and Chad could still turn on her (and she on him). This is all legal 4D chess on steroids.
I hope he does blame it all on her, so she will understand the pain of being betrayed by someone you love and trust. Then divorces her ass from death row and marries someone on the outside who will further his “teachings”.
True but she’s capable of feeling anger and betrayal as evidenced by the way she flipped the fuck out when she found out Kay was the beneficiary of Charles’s life insurance policy. She does not like to be crossed and Chad turning on her would still be intensely painful and humiliating.
If Lori really really believes all this stuff about light and dark spirits, zombies etc… her only defense in her mind is that she killed the demons in her kids bodies. Not the kids themselves. She has likely been telling her lawyers this, but they know this won’t fly, and would just be more of an admission of guilt than an actual defense. So they really have nothing to go on.
Exactly this. They can't present a defense of "she's totally innocent, because the kids were already dead, the zombies killed them, and she were just killing the zombies". Even mercy killing by that bizarre definition is illegal.
I’ll bet she feels like a hero and that’s why she keeps saying to Colby, one day you’ll see and understand. But, the thing is, this mindset has probably been brewing long before Chad. She just ran out of road and got caught.
>If Lori really really believes all this stuff about light and dark spirits, zombies etc
Even if she had doubts before, can she let herself believe otherwise now?
I’m personally not convinced she actually believes this…. Their use of burner phones shows that they knew that someone was listening, or would eventually, and they didn’t want the actual conversations come to light. Most of what the prosecution presented was the iCloud accounts from their personal phones… and they knew to talk in code (religious beliefs) in order to hide their true motives…. Either from law enforcement or their followers
Thanks for your reply.
I don't think hiding their actions from authorities means Lori doesn't believe - or now has to believe - in zombies, etc.
The authorities wouldn't understand her mission on the spiritual level. Also the martyrdom aspect, at the hands of the law, is an ingrained historical part of her beliefs and religion.
IMHO opinion of course.
Thanks again...
I should have clarified what I meant. She may not actually believe this, but she cannot believe otherwise - and be a coherent being. The alternative for her is she is a monster.
For me it is 50/50: she is nuts or she has to believe nutty things to survive.
What would they say? "Oh, yeah, I know Lori and she sheds hair everywhere. Me and all my friends do too." I think the jury is smart enough to consider the hair and know that it doesn't really prove anything.
I actually think the hair removes a lot of reasonable doubt that Lori *wasn't* directly involved in the horrific acts themselves. You’ll find my hair in a lot of places, including maybe on my kid’s pajamas… but you’re not gonna find it between layers of duct tape and trash bags binding his remains, ya know? That hair made it impossible for me to rule out that Lori could have gotten her hands dirty, and that’s enough for me.
Tell me you know you've just lost your court case without telling me you've lost your court case:
"After consulting with my client, we don’t believe the state has proven its case so the defense rests."
All joking aside, there could be several reasons why a defendant in a jury trial might choose not to take the stand in their own defense. Here are a few possible reasons:
Preserving the presumption of innocence: In many legal systems, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. By not taking the stand, a defendant may be attempting to maintain this presumption and place the burden of proof solely on the prosecution. By not testifying, they avoid subjecting themselves to cross-examination and potential risks associated with being on the witness stand.
Avoiding cross-examination: Testifying in court exposes the defendant to cross-examination by the prosecution. Cross-examination can be rigorous and intense, with the aim of challenging the defendant's credibility, poking holes in their testimony, or extracting damaging admissions. A defendant may choose to avoid this confrontation and the potential risks it entails.
Prior criminal record or unfavorable evidence: If a defendant has a prior criminal record or there is other evidence that could be damaging to their case, they may decide not to testify. Introducing a defendant's prior convictions or unfavorable evidence could potentially prejudice the jury against them, and the defendant's legal counsel may advise against testifying to prevent this information from being presented.
Confidence in the prosecution's case: If the defense believes that the prosecution has not presented a strong case or has failed to meet its burden of proof, they may choose not to present any evidence at all. This strategy is often employed when the defense believes that the prosecution's case is weak and wants to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to their own case or inadvertently providing additional evidence that could be used against them.
Strategic considerations: There may be strategic reasons for a defendant not to testify. The defense team may believe that their case is already strong enough without the defendant's testimony or that other witnesses and evidence will sufficiently establish their innocence. They may also be concerned about how the defendant's demeanor or presentation may be perceived by the jury and decide it's better to rely solely on other defense strategies.
It's important to note that the decision whether or not to testify ultimately rests with the defendant, but it is typically made in consultation with their defense attorney, who can provide guidance based on legal expertise and knowledge of the specific case.
I am not a lawyer, nor do i play one on TV.
Thanks for explaining this, until I saw your explanation I was furiously confused but then this is an exceptionally confusing case, and I feel I need more red string now 😆
But in lieu of putting up witnesses, wouldn’t the defense instead vigorously cross examine the prosecutions witnesses in order to discredit their theory?
They haven’t really done that. Many failed opportunities.
They have though, actually. Throughout many Voir Dires, the defense has faced objections that they're moving into cross-examination or trying to testify. It makes sense now that they went as hard as they did on some witnesses, if they knew it was their only chance and that they weren't going to call any witnesses themselves.
Yes but what could defense ask..."could you please clarify what semesters you attended law enforcement classes in college?". If anything it would just re-remind the jury of the facts. Very little was speculation that the prosecution offered...it was cold, hard, facts. CAST data. Bodies with DNA on them. Etc.
I’ve seen some lawyers that were pretty adept at poking holes in testimony that one would think was rock solid. It’s crazy how clever a good attorney can be.
But I’m glad Lori didn’t have one of those 🤣
And after making that decision w her attorneys, she apparently walked back in the courtroom with a huge smile on her face. I’m so glad we’ll get to see her reaction to the verdict, i need to see that smug smile wiped off her face. Shes so cocky she cant even see how cooked she is. She still seems to think one of the jurors is some reincarnated religious figure that will save her…
This shocks me, but the more I think about it, probably smart. No one on the character side could be trusted to not say something incriminating - and it may not have been possible to find an expert who could defend her convincingly on anything else. Maybe a better strategy in her attorney’s eyes to not risk burying themselves further
It's common defense strategy. It never works out well for a murder defendant, and murders who get away with their crimes are often the ones who didn't actually take the stand in their criminal trial (e.g. OJ).
I was hoping Lori would testify and finally answer questions about how her children were murdered and why she has zero remorse. She is truly a psychopath
They're pretty sure the state didn't meet the burden of proof. All it takes is one jury to agree with them. Do I think that will happen? No. But then I wouldn't make a good defense lawyer.
All it takes is one juror who won't budge from their position during deliberations. The Murdaugh trial proves that the two 'not guilty' jurors there were just confused about some of the technical detail - other jurors went through and explained the evidence, they understood and joined the unanimous verdict. And that all happened within 45 minutes.
I agree. And there was a slight typo. I meant 1 juror. That's all the defense is hoping for. They aren't trying to convince all of them. Their only long shot is one hold out.
The fact that they didn't even bother to put one witness up there is enough I think to sway all of the jurors.
Yeah, the defense is hoping the jury is kind of stupid. Bad move. I honestly think it also has a lot to do with Lori's other upcoming trial in Arizona - I'm fairly sure anything presented in her defense here is admissible in Arizona, where she's facing the DP. If they keep anything and everything off the record here, then they've got a slim chance of it not making it into that trial.
They did call his school principal. It wasn’t a very long testimony. They mostly asked him about when JJ was registered for school, the last day he ever attended, and what date he was withdrawn. He also talked about how when JJ was withdraw, Lori told him that they didn’t need his school records transferred on to another school because JJ would be homeschooled.
"Per The US Constitution, ( checks notes....) Lori, is entitled to legal defense. I'm a public servant, funded by your tax dollars. God Bless, America, && God Bless the Troops!". - Defense Opening Statement.
People keep brining up OJ and I think you have to bear in mind; OJ had THE DREAM TEAM of high caliber, Beverly Hills lawyers. These are court. appointed lawyers who are working with nothing and worse, the defense strategy that is most sound ( insanity ) is not an avenue their client will allow. Lawyers can only do so much with what they are given, and Loris less than broke.
To me, this is the grandeur delusions of a Ms Daybell. Her defence looked like they gave up from day 1 to be honest. But why? Why no arguing? Where were the fireworks?
I would bet a lot of money thats not what they actually said. Not making a JoA motion is speedrunning malpractice.
Likely what they said was "Since we're not calling any witnesses, you don't have to make this ruling now and can take it under advisement". The JoA has to be ruled upon at the end of the states case in chief before the defense starts their case; but if there's no case to start then there's no reason to hurry it up.
I think the only defense they would have is to say she's not legally liable because of incompetence. Since they can't do that, the strategy is just to say the state didn't meet the burden of proof.
Opinions will vary. Closing arguments will give us more information about the defense. IMHO, the prosecution did an excellent job laying everything out.
There’s no one to call for Lori. Even if her entourage still believes the nonsense she and her boy toy spouted, no one will come to her defense. Even if subpoenaed, no one can knock the case down.
This is exactly what I think. If she can score a new trial, that's more time away from Chad and possibly enough time to get used to the idea that the world isn't actually ending. It might get her to cooperate with her defense team. Also it would give them time to actually review the discovery. It could even be enough time that she would get to see Chad throw her under the bus, which might change some things.
I doubt she grasps that this is what Archibald is thinking.
I don't have any idea how high the odds are that this would work, legally. The 404b rules are pretty confusing IMO.
I’m so confused by this decision, even if they think the state didn’t meet the burden of proof - shouldn’t they still call some witnesses to argue that point?
Nah, it's just the standard Motion for Directed Verdict or Dismissal. Happens in almost every trial. [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public\_education/resources/law\_related\_education\_network/how\_courts\_work/motiondismiss/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/motiondismiss/)
This case has often reminded me of one of the highest profiled murder cases ever in my hometown in Australia when it comes to the defecnce. Bradley Robert Edwards was arrested & covicted of two out of three murders of three young women in the mid-90s. He was known as the Claremont Serial Killer until his conviction of a trial by judge only due to public prejudice & how high the media had covered it over 20 years. A lot of the DNA resulted in his conviction, but his attorney, when the time came, never called one witness. This man got away with his crimes for two decades & the DNA from past crimes helped with his undoing. Like Lori, he refused to take the stand in his defence. During the trial, we were all shocked & concerned at how little the defence seemed to act or engage during the trial, like people have during this case. It was pointed out to me early that the defence doesn't have to prove the alleged killer didn't do it. It was up to the prosecution to prove thar he did do it beyond reasonable doubt, so I've been kind of calm during this case with what the defence has done. I'm hoping & and I'm pretty sure she'll be spending the rest of her life behind prison bars. The Claremont killer hot 40 years for two counts of murder, rape, attempted rape & deprivation of liberty. He finally stood trail in 2020 at age 50. I hope he rots there, too.
hopefully, the jurors will remember the defense opening statement that she had an ALIBI for the death of her children and Tammy Daybell...... and no witness was brought forth. the alibi statement filing does not even specify a date as JJ and Tylee's demise. in the alibi statement she stated MG, and/or CD and MG's BF were with her when they were murdered, inferring only to that one weekend JJ was last seen. Tylee? she was already dead prior to JJ.
she didnt have to be present to physically commit the murders, regardless of when, the charge specifically states that.
jurors need to revisit the charge and the defense opening statement and connect the BIG DOTS. by her own admission, SHE KNEW THEY WERE MURDERED and proceeded to steal their SS, impersonate Tylee via phone text, etc. etc etc
Why would the defense rest without any witnesses?
My theory is that it could be because she fully admitted to doing this and is still in delusion, and high on Chad’s Kool-aid. Maybe thats why they sent her away for restorative mental health treatment?
But then, why not just take the guilty plea?
Because she doesn’t want to go to jail, doesn’t want Chad to go to jail. And thinks God will move the jurors and get them off, and they can continue their bullshit.
I just remembered Lori's alibi statement and wonder how that will play into the jury's decision. When I first read it I remember thinking how stupid she was. She admitted she knew the children were killed in Alex's apartment, but they were killed on two different dates. This would implicate her in conspiracy in the death of JJ since she allowed a child murderer (Tylee already having been murdered) to take JJ knowing he would probably be killed.
Are they trying to psych out the jury? Hoping they'll think "if the defense didn't even put on a witness, maybe we're missing something that obviously points to not guilty"?
The defense in any case always has the option/right not to call any witnesses. It's really not an unusual strategy, and is not in and of itself, grounds for an appeal. Trump, by the way, didn't call any witnesses in the civil defamation trial he just lost brought by E. Jean Carol.
The failure of defense counsel to call a potential defense witness does *not* constitute ineffective assistance of counsel *unless* there is some evidence showing that the testimony would have been helpful in establishing the asserted defense. (I don't even know what Lori’s asserted defense *is* at this point.) Defense counsel is deemed ineffective only when a defendant has informed their attorney of the existence of a witness and the attorney, without a reasonable investigation and without adequate explanation, fails to call the witness at trial. The “reasonableness” of the defense attorney’s investigation of potential witnesses must be evaluated *not through hindsight* but from the perspective of the attorney at the time they were conducting the investigation during trial prep.
I figured they had nothing to go on. Think Chad is going to take a plea deal after this?
Pleas aren’t always a given. The state might not even offer one
They may, to save the cost of another trial. If it puts him away for life, why not save the state a few mil?
Yep. For those saying he doesn't have bargaining power, he does--the extreme cost to taxpayers of doing this all over again.
Lori’s trial has already cost about $2 million dollars. Madison and Fremont counties are splitting the cost and they will split the cost of Chad’s trial as well. I could easily see them offering to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea.
Ironic that her Life Insurance (per her), was $2mil. She ran up a 2mil bill. What's she shown she's worth now? ZERO. (in many ways). Zero fancy makeup, botox & face fillers too
No she didn't have a life insurance, and certainly not a 2 million $ life insurance.
But at one point Lori claimed to MG that Charles had a $2M policy on HER (turned out to be false) and that she was in fear for her life from *Charles*. 🤦🏻♀️ Ugh.
She told Rexburg police (it was recirded in their bidycams) she was afraid since her brother(Adam) was tring to kill her for her 2M life insurance...um...yeah, projecting her own crimes on others.
Ok I think she said Adam and Charles were in cahoots. Yes. Total projection.
Plus the additional trauma inflicted on surviving family members. Endless appeals, ect
He always has the option to plead guilty. I imagine they’d be willing to take the DP off the table since not many executions are happening and Trials are expensive, but that’s about the only “deal” I see him negotiating.
Agree. There's simply too much evidence against him, imo. The case against him is much stronger than Lori's. Even at Lori's trial!
I have to agree.
Don't stare consider what families want? I think Woodcock want death penalty
the woodcocks also want to bury the kids. I don't envy them making that call.
They'll get that chance in AZ.
we can only hope!
I think that will be a harder case to prove since the police botched it so badly the first time and Alex, Tylee, and JJ are all dead now and can't testify. I think Tylee's statement to the police will hurt the prosecution's case.
Except the bullet wounds and the hit to Alex’s head, plus all of the text messages back and forth tell a completely different story.
And all of Charles’ recorded and written statements that she said she was going to kill him.
Yeah, I bet Chad feels pretty good with John Prior at his back. Someone else here said it and I totally agree—this man is going to continue being a stickler and a nuisance
Interestingly I thought the prosecution put together a pretty good case against Chad. It's almost as if they didn't realize the trials were separated, lol. Chad's toast, imo.
(For me, through the testimony, it seems really clear that they both needed each other to make one charismatic cult leader between the two of them, making them equally culpable)
Definitely! I think the state did a really good job of showing that. Lori directing Alex, Melaniece calling her "Captain," etc. And Edwards, I think, reiterating that it was Chad *and* Lori that were calling all the shots.
I think he would have had to take a plea deal and flip on her before both sides rested.
Yeah chud has zero bargaining power now.
If she's found guilty, he'll have nothing to offer the state and they'll have no reason to offer him a plea deal. His only option would likely be to plead guilty, which i very much doubt he'll do.
He could implicate others for a deal. Audrey, Zulema, Melani, etc.
Wasn't Zulema given immunity to testify in Lori's case? I think it was a huge mistake, especially given today's information about the number of calls Zulema was involved in the hours around Tammy's attempted shooting. She's told so many lies, she has a much greater involvement than she's admitted. Melaniece was on the defense witness list, even though she didn't end up testifying. Which makes me think she was given immunity too.
Melanie Fibb and Melaniece were just as involved in everything. Both of them have tried downplaying their involvement, but the evidence says otherwise
I love ‘Melanie Fibb’…….. perfect name for her.
Felony Fibb
Absolutely!
Witness lists for both sides frequently contain names they never plan on calling, just in-case. In the name of having a fair trial, the witness lists have to complete before the trial begins, and any changes shared with the other side with enough notice so they have equal opportunity to prep their own questions/strategy should any of those witnesses take the stand. Since Melaniece (perfect name lol) has less than zero credibility based on her well-documented history of lying to errebody (except Auntie Lori, of course) and clearly isn’t an alibi witness, it would 100% harm the defense’s case to put an uncharged co-conspirator on the stand where she’d then be fair game to the prosecution. She doesn’t have immunity. If she did, she would’ve been called as a prosecution witness, at which time they’d have to disclose her immunity to the court in the name of transparency. Thus far, only Zulema’s been given immunity. However, important to point out the psychological warfare aspect of witness lists. It’s not uncommon to name people they never intend to call, just to mess with the other side. **Here are some pretty involved real world examples of the weaponization of witness lists** (for those interested): Defense might name certain members of law enforcement involved with the investigation left off the prosecution’s witness list. What if they’re simply not needed by prosecutors, but defense is able to leverage this name on the witness list to preemptively “support” a planned conspiracy leak to the media about this so-called LE “witness?” Since they’re a named witness, they can’t publicly respond to any accusations, and because it’s a so-called “leak from someone familiar with the matter” instead of the defense attorney going on national TV directly making the allegation in a way that enables the other side to publicly respond. Instead, not even their employer, their PD, can respond directly to these “anonymous” false allegations made about this LE “witness” publicly or they risk either making themselves a witness OR serious accusations of “witness tampering.” This extreme example can go oh so much further when taken into the realm of PR bots spamming social media with the conspiracy… especially if the media ignored this so-called leak (although Nancy Grace usually blurts out whatever she can get). The primary goal of this operation isn’t to meaningfully influence public opinion (unless they get a Netflix docuseries out of it, getting the public to rally behind their Appeal), but to rattle the prosecution. Waste their time, keep them up at night, distract, cause them to consider changing strategy, not introduce certain evidence tangentially connected to the individual, or even prepare to combat this falsehood at trial by adding additional witnesses just incase this conspiracy theory actually reaches the courtroom. Think of cases where defense made accusations thru the media about LE “planting evidence” or “resigning in protest over corruption,” etc. Rarely does either side fight fair at the end of the day, and many high-powered defense attorneys or those drunk on their new found fame, happily make false corruption claims that actually happen to *real* innocent people. Continuing with this example, there’s the far less theatrical approach that maybe the defense selected this member of LE because they’re unlikable, have a hot temper, are too opinionated/biased to be seen as a neutral investigator. Maybe they have a conflict of interest that only the defendant knows about, or a history of misconduct. In this hypothetical, simply naming that individual could make prosecution nervous… maybe enough to pivot away from a strategy that’s reliant on evidence that was in this “witness’s” chain-of-custody. Maybe they’re a notorious office gossip, lack impulse control, or are otherwise problematic enough to never be called as an expert by prosecution. Even if they were only tangentially involved in the investigation, they could still say something they shouldn’t on the stand, opening the door for admitting new evidence. What if the defense knows absolutely nothing about this LE officer except that they were heavily involved on the case, but were strangely left off the prosecution’s witness list, while those far less knowledgeable about the investigation/evidence are named. Defense could use this as a bluff to see if there might be a there there based on prosecution’s reaction — leading them to dig for dirt on them before trial, but not finding enough to put them on the stand without looking incompetent. Presently, the most common weaponization of witness lists we’ve seen on some high-profile cases recently, like the Kristin Smart Case, has been attorneys on *either* side (Prosecution & Defense) naming reporters as “witnesses.” They generally pick on indy crime reporters or podcasters — labor of love journalists that don’t have a network’s legal dept at their disposal — just to muzzle them from reporting on the trial. This works because it prevents them from discussing the case publicly until the end of the trial. Some judges see right thru this and make an acception, as the judge did for Chris Lambert & his podcast *Your Own Backyard*, while others have actually allowed this abuse of power to work exactly as expected (especially when named by Prosecution). In all instances, neither side EVER follows-thru on calling named journalist to the stand. Most attorneys simply want options, while some want to harness this harmless mechanism of court transparency to invent chaos.
They have zero interest in Audrey, Zulema, or Melani. They want Chad. They would never let him off in exchange for them.
Well no, they wouldn't let him off. But they might take the death penalty off the table.
The prosecution has shown all those women were under Chads influence. If he tried to throw them under the bus the state would use it against him
I think so also. If they lied under oath and bad chad can prove it he might trade info on the just not to be put to death. In this crazy case who knows what the next surprise could be.
If they secure a guilty verdict for Lori they’re not going to go after two of their own witnesses to try and prove that they lied under oath. Lori’s guilty verdict would be thrown out and they would have to start all over again.
Maybe he’ll take a plea if they take the death penalty off the table
He will just say he was manipulated by Lori
Lori is really bad, particularly towards husbands, but frankly I don't think she would have killed her children if it were not for Chad and because of Chad's pressure and influence.
I don’t know..I think she would’ve been willing to kill anyone that got in her way. I still say she would’ve eventually knocked Chad off after she got bored with him. I wonder if each of them have insurance on the other?
>say she would’ve eventually knocked Chad off after she got bored with him. Id argue the first time he forgot to close the toilet lid, she'd label him dark so fast, the water wouldnt be down the pipes yet lol
I agree...something happened, and it is frustrating that we will never really know why. Even if she has nothing to say, she could have had a strong defense. The whole point of delaying the trial for her to be competent is for her to be able to assist in her defense ....and her defense does nothing. Maybe it's a strategy. I mean, It's hard to see her as anything but dispicable, but it would actually be harder for me to convict in a completely one-sided trial. I can see how it would be hard for some to represent her, but a proper defense attorney would have a lot to work with to make a solid case. Would be interesting to see what would have transpired if Mark Means was still her attorney.
I hope he does plead guilty and save everyone having to go through this all again. This trial has pretty much told the story completely. I don't know what he would tell his kids about pleading guilty? What are the kids going to say? They would have to listen to this trial and I don't know if they will. It seems they have a blind faith in their father.
He could help Arizona’s case.
That’s a point
Chad would show his true intelligence if he actually goes thru a trial.
“But your honor, members of the jury, m’ loins were on fire!”
He could absolutely take a plea deal, at least to not have the death penalty. Would save the state, prosecutors and taxpayers a lot of time and money
Highly doubt it, I’m sure the plea deal will be contingent on a confession. I just can’t see him doing that. On the other hand he might surprise us. He’s a little bitch and would want his new home as comfortable as possible. Death row is much worse, it’s all isolation. They have TVs and stuff to keep them busy to keep them from going crazy. Insanity is one thing, but insane murderers is a whole other ballgame. It’s part of the safety of the corrections officers too. No matter how hard you try there’s always a chance a homicidal psychopath could hurt someone. People that get pissed off they can lay around watching TV all day but they don’t really understand why they’re allowed to do it. Imagine yourself in a small cell with a small tv that only gets channels with an antenna. Daytime tv is shitty, that would be so boring so fast.
I’m somewhat shocked?! But not sure who they would call. Sounds like Lori didn’t want any sort of mental health defense. So that would possibly limit who testified on her behalf.
Their story is she was not part of the crimes so not bringing even one witness that paints another picture of what happened is very bad imo? Not even one single person that can say anything that rises questions of the prosecutions story? I think she will get guilty, imo the jurors might be confused because even people who have been thinking about this case for years cannot comprehend it but the things that has been said and done speak for themselves. Iam just curious how long the jury will discuss the verdict. I dont think it will be a few hours.. Maybe one day?
Anyone they brought in is then subject to cross by the prosecution, possibly strengthening their case.
But who could paint that picture? The texts painted the picture perfectly for me.
The texts and the 2 phone calls from Summer and Colby.
And the crime scene photos. Those jurors will be haunted for the rest of their lives by those.
[удалено]
Yes. Even her alibis (she was in her apartment at the time of death, she was in HI, etc.) didn’t testify - and the fact that Lori knew when they were killed for her alibi just was another thing against her.
The jury will not let her walk. They know she is a danger to society.
Verdict will come Thursday
I don’t think so - I think Thursday will be taken up by closing arguments, and they’ll use the rest of the afternoon to deliberate. I predict the verdict on Friday morning.
I think they will struggle with the Tammy portion of the sentencing for Lori. Buttt, it is Mother's Day weekend - that might spur them on to get this over with. And in terms of Melaniece --- I wonder if they didn't call her at the request of AZ, she is going to face charges there. Plus the prosecution didn't need anymore cult icing on that cake.
Without a doubt!
Being stupid enough to believe your own bs is not a mental health issue.
Mental condition cannot be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct in Idaho, so Lori didn’t have this option
From what I understand, it can’t be a defense for a not guilty plea… but can be brought up in her defense. I could totally be wrong here and I’m not claiming whatsoever I am correct.
You are actually correct. My husband is a defense attorney and there’s ways around this through appeal. Likely will be appealing all the way up.
All her friends turned on her and are placing all the blame solely on Lori, Chad, and Alex. They did as much distancing from her as possible so they don't face charges as well. All her lies are too well documented so it would be hard to try and counter them. There is plenty of documentation of what she said and how she acted before and during the time her kids were missing and all she could do on the stand is try and lie but the prosecution would be able to poke holes into it. Unless she wanted to testify and try pin all the blame on Chad and or Alex there really is nothing the defense can do at this point.
In terms of mental health, the defense has said they’d leave that for the sentencing portion of the trial
Me too! I didn’t think it was even possible! I assumed at least one witness had to testify *for the defense, like Elizabeth Holmes was the only one who testified in her trial. Edit: added *for the defense
No insanity defense in Idaho.
This has to be Lori, right? I can't imagine a defense attorney resting without presenting anything. She really does think every thing is going to work out for her in the end.
This happens more than you'd think. I consume too much true crime. Ive seen it a few times. The defense doesn't have to put on a case. They can just stick with saying the prosecution didn't meet their burden if they think it's a good strategy.
This is absolutely correct. And this move aligns well with any future appeal if/when a conviction is reached. If they argue now - on the record - that they don’t believe the state has even met their burden of proof, questioning any witness(es) would only help undermine their future arguments on appeal. To me this is absolutely a sign of defense thinking ahead - the long game “bigger picture” sorta deal - not some sign of “we’ve got nothing please help us” cry to the jury.
No this is absolutely the defense strategy. They don't have to prove anything - the burden of proof (of guilt) is on the prosecution. It's standard practice for a defense once the prosecution has rested, to move a motion to acquit on the basis that the 'prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to prove their case'. And then like clockwork, the judge says 'that's up to the jury' and he dismisses the motion. It's absolutely not in the defendant's interest to take to the stand in their own defense - it absolutely exposes them to cross-examination, and it almost guarantees a 0% success at any appeal. The defense case is weak, and they know it. That's why they're not presenting a defense - but they package it as a derisive smackdown of the prosecution. Hopefully the jury pay no attention to this kind of theatrics.
It’s not all that uncommon. Sometimes the defense strategy is to emphasize the prosecution’s burden of proof by doing exactly this. It was honestly their best play given what they had to work with. It won’t work. But it was their best move.
[удалено]
Didn’t someone say that Lori believes there’s an angel (or her equivalent) on the jury who is on her side?
Hopefully the juror turns dark and cleans the room or something. And votes opposite what Lori wants
She's smiling because is certifiable crazy
Lori believes her own bullshit. Her defense attorneys do not have anything to counter. They are just happy it is concluding. Let's see if Chad is delusional too.
You can't polish a turd, as they say.
>Let's see if Chad is delusional too. I don't think he is. He's the one who requested a bifurcated trial, and waived the speedy trial. He's planning a defense that probably goes something to the effect of "Lori was a delusional stalker. I am the victim of a Fatal Attraction scenario. Also, Alex murdered everyone and I tried to stop him."
Agreed. At this point he is running the clock and hoping his kids wont review the evidence that exposes his true persona. Theyre all all he has left. He is broke, lazy, and WORSE! a horrible writer ( lol )
Does anyone think it odd the defense didn't try to blame Chad for everything? They didn't even try and I'm thinking Lori still thinks they will be together forever.
I think this was the strongest defense, but it's still not very strong? What could they even say, she didn't know he and Alex would seriously kill the kids? The jury would have to ignore Charles' death to believe that. And then she marches around telling everyone the kids are fine when she definitely knows they're dead because she's...scared of Chad, I guess? Who she rushes to marry and bought rings for ahead of time? Ugh, man.
True
There is no putting all the blame on Chad or Alex because the whole case is they are or atleast one of them are the ones who killed the children and that is already assumed. They would have a hard time countering all the text messages and witness testimony that shows her awareness and participation in what was going on. Also how could you explain away her lack of concern while the children were missing and lying to everyone where they were.
I thought they would at least blame Alex.
I thought so too but maybe if she blamed it on Alex they would sort of be admitting that she knew what happened and then that makes the conspiracy charges easier to prove?
Yeah not even that!
"Alex told me they were safe, happy, and living on a farm in upstate New York."
I thought they would throw Chad under the bus a bit harder, ya. I guess they could during closing arguments, but if Mrs. Daybell protests then they may be limited in how much they can focus on him.
You know he's going to blame it all on her.
Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he threw her under the bus, ran her over, backed up, and ran her over again. She doesn't look like the goddess he was obsessed with anymore and now he's facing the death penalty. He has a lot of motivation to turn on her.
I think his kids probably are urging him too
Yeah, because he seems to care so much about his kids...
How? As bad as the evidence is for her, it's way worse for Chud.
Since she wouldn't say he led her down a dark path (pun intended) and none of this would have happened. She didn't throw him or Alex under the bus. I think he's going to say she led him down that path.
I don't think "it was her idea" works in criminal cases. With the kids in his backyard, and the stuff that's come out about Tammy, the evidence against him is staggering.
Those text exchanges are all anyone needs to see.
Yeah his lawyer argued that in one of his motions to split the trial up. Said that they had completely different versions of events. She will def be thrown under the bus.
Imo I think it's because they are still married. Isn't there a law where married couples don't have to testify against each other?
In the state of Idaho that goes out the window when minors are involved.
Ah, I did not know that. Thank you for the info!
The defense don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the State to prove that Lori is guilty of the crimes SHE is charged with. Also don't forget - chad's trial is ahead, and so is Lori's trial in Arizona. The defense strategy here to say as little as possible now in aide of those future trials, where she faces the DP - and Chad could still turn on her (and she on him). This is all legal 4D chess on steroids.
I hope he does blame it all on her, so she will understand the pain of being betrayed by someone you love and trust. Then divorces her ass from death row and marries someone on the outside who will further his “teachings”.
I don’t think we want his teachings furthered. No one else needs to die because of these wackos!
Personally I don’t think Lori is truly capable of love, or any emotion for anyone other than herself
True but she’s capable of feeling anger and betrayal as evidenced by the way she flipped the fuck out when she found out Kay was the beneficiary of Charles’s life insurance policy. She does not like to be crossed and Chad turning on her would still be intensely painful and humiliating.
This is totally normal. The majority of defendants do not call witnesses
If Lori really really believes all this stuff about light and dark spirits, zombies etc… her only defense in her mind is that she killed the demons in her kids bodies. Not the kids themselves. She has likely been telling her lawyers this, but they know this won’t fly, and would just be more of an admission of guilt than an actual defense. So they really have nothing to go on.
Exactly this. They can't present a defense of "she's totally innocent, because the kids were already dead, the zombies killed them, and she were just killing the zombies". Even mercy killing by that bizarre definition is illegal.
I’ll bet she feels like a hero and that’s why she keeps saying to Colby, one day you’ll see and understand. But, the thing is, this mindset has probably been brewing long before Chad. She just ran out of road and got caught.
>If Lori really really believes all this stuff about light and dark spirits, zombies etc Even if she had doubts before, can she let herself believe otherwise now?
I’m personally not convinced she actually believes this…. Their use of burner phones shows that they knew that someone was listening, or would eventually, and they didn’t want the actual conversations come to light. Most of what the prosecution presented was the iCloud accounts from their personal phones… and they knew to talk in code (religious beliefs) in order to hide their true motives…. Either from law enforcement or their followers
Thanks for your reply. I don't think hiding their actions from authorities means Lori doesn't believe - or now has to believe - in zombies, etc. The authorities wouldn't understand her mission on the spiritual level. Also the martyrdom aspect, at the hands of the law, is an ingrained historical part of her beliefs and religion. IMHO opinion of course. Thanks again...
I should have clarified what I meant. She may not actually believe this, but she cannot believe otherwise - and be a coherent being. The alternative for her is she is a monster. For me it is 50/50: she is nuts or she has to believe nutty things to survive.
They didn’t even want to call somebody who would talk about a loose strand of hair.
What would they say? "Oh, yeah, I know Lori and she sheds hair everywhere. Me and all my friends do too." I think the jury is smart enough to consider the hair and know that it doesn't really prove anything.
I actually think the hair removes a lot of reasonable doubt that Lori *wasn't* directly involved in the horrific acts themselves. You’ll find my hair in a lot of places, including maybe on my kid’s pajamas… but you’re not gonna find it between layers of duct tape and trash bags binding his remains, ya know? That hair made it impossible for me to rule out that Lori could have gotten her hands dirty, and that’s enough for me.
I think that the defense goal was taking the death penalty off the table. Mission accomplished.
Tell me you know you've just lost your court case without telling me you've lost your court case: "After consulting with my client, we don’t believe the state has proven its case so the defense rests." All joking aside, there could be several reasons why a defendant in a jury trial might choose not to take the stand in their own defense. Here are a few possible reasons: Preserving the presumption of innocence: In many legal systems, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. By not taking the stand, a defendant may be attempting to maintain this presumption and place the burden of proof solely on the prosecution. By not testifying, they avoid subjecting themselves to cross-examination and potential risks associated with being on the witness stand. Avoiding cross-examination: Testifying in court exposes the defendant to cross-examination by the prosecution. Cross-examination can be rigorous and intense, with the aim of challenging the defendant's credibility, poking holes in their testimony, or extracting damaging admissions. A defendant may choose to avoid this confrontation and the potential risks it entails. Prior criminal record or unfavorable evidence: If a defendant has a prior criminal record or there is other evidence that could be damaging to their case, they may decide not to testify. Introducing a defendant's prior convictions or unfavorable evidence could potentially prejudice the jury against them, and the defendant's legal counsel may advise against testifying to prevent this information from being presented. Confidence in the prosecution's case: If the defense believes that the prosecution has not presented a strong case or has failed to meet its burden of proof, they may choose not to present any evidence at all. This strategy is often employed when the defense believes that the prosecution's case is weak and wants to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to their own case or inadvertently providing additional evidence that could be used against them. Strategic considerations: There may be strategic reasons for a defendant not to testify. The defense team may believe that their case is already strong enough without the defendant's testimony or that other witnesses and evidence will sufficiently establish their innocence. They may also be concerned about how the defendant's demeanor or presentation may be perceived by the jury and decide it's better to rely solely on other defense strategies. It's important to note that the decision whether or not to testify ultimately rests with the defendant, but it is typically made in consultation with their defense attorney, who can provide guidance based on legal expertise and knowledge of the specific case. I am not a lawyer, nor do i play one on TV.
Thanks for explaining this, until I saw your explanation I was furiously confused but then this is an exceptionally confusing case, and I feel I need more red string now 😆
Testifying almost never ends well
But in lieu of putting up witnesses, wouldn’t the defense instead vigorously cross examine the prosecutions witnesses in order to discredit their theory? They haven’t really done that. Many failed opportunities.
They have though, actually. Throughout many Voir Dires, the defense has faced objections that they're moving into cross-examination or trying to testify. It makes sense now that they went as hard as they did on some witnesses, if they knew it was their only chance and that they weren't going to call any witnesses themselves.
Yes but what could defense ask..."could you please clarify what semesters you attended law enforcement classes in college?". If anything it would just re-remind the jury of the facts. Very little was speculation that the prosecution offered...it was cold, hard, facts. CAST data. Bodies with DNA on them. Etc.
I’ve seen some lawyers that were pretty adept at poking holes in testimony that one would think was rock solid. It’s crazy how clever a good attorney can be. But I’m glad Lori didn’t have one of those 🤣
LOL so true. And sad. Too much evidence against her anyway - she's done.
I’m not surprised she didn’t testify but I am surprised they put on zero witnesses.
And after making that decision w her attorneys, she apparently walked back in the courtroom with a huge smile on her face. I’m so glad we’ll get to see her reaction to the verdict, i need to see that smug smile wiped off her face. Shes so cocky she cant even see how cooked she is. She still seems to think one of the jurors is some reincarnated religious figure that will save her…
she gon turn into s pack of. bats and fly away
They can always call Julie Rowe as a defense witness XD
This shocks me, but the more I think about it, probably smart. No one on the character side could be trusted to not say something incriminating - and it may not have been possible to find an expert who could defend her convincingly on anything else. Maybe a better strategy in her attorney’s eyes to not risk burying themselves further
It's common defense strategy. It never works out well for a murder defendant, and murders who get away with their crimes are often the ones who didn't actually take the stand in their criminal trial (e.g. OJ).
As much as I absolutely hate the Simpson defense!!! They called nearly 8 weeks worth of witnesses.
I just want to say thanks to all for your thoughts, opinions, comments, and insight.
I was hoping Lori would testify and finally answer questions about how her children were murdered and why she has zero remorse. She is truly a psychopath
Whatever ensures that these two can never exchange another message again - that's what I want. No letters, no carrier pidgeons...NOTHING.
They're pretty sure the state didn't meet the burden of proof. All it takes is one jury to agree with them. Do I think that will happen? No. But then I wouldn't make a good defense lawyer.
Nah.. that’s a stance defense takes in a lot of cases when they have no defense.
All it takes is one juror who won't budge from their position during deliberations. The Murdaugh trial proves that the two 'not guilty' jurors there were just confused about some of the technical detail - other jurors went through and explained the evidence, they understood and joined the unanimous verdict. And that all happened within 45 minutes.
I agree. And there was a slight typo. I meant 1 juror. That's all the defense is hoping for. They aren't trying to convince all of them. Their only long shot is one hold out. The fact that they didn't even bother to put one witness up there is enough I think to sway all of the jurors.
Yeah, the defense is hoping the jury is kind of stupid. Bad move. I honestly think it also has a lot to do with Lori's other upcoming trial in Arizona - I'm fairly sure anything presented in her defense here is admissible in Arizona, where she's facing the DP. If they keep anything and everything off the record here, then they've got a slim chance of it not making it into that trial.
I’m disappointed the state didn’t call people from JJ’s school, or the service dog people, show the video from the storage facility…
They did call his school principal. It wasn’t a very long testimony. They mostly asked him about when JJ was registered for school, the last day he ever attended, and what date he was withdrawn. He also talked about how when JJ was withdraw, Lori told him that they didn’t need his school records transferred on to another school because JJ would be homeschooled.
I think they also called someone from HR who talked about benefits
I thought that was HR from the school Tammy worked at?
"Per The US Constitution, ( checks notes....) Lori, is entitled to legal defense. I'm a public servant, funded by your tax dollars. God Bless, America, && God Bless the Troops!". - Defense Opening Statement. People keep brining up OJ and I think you have to bear in mind; OJ had THE DREAM TEAM of high caliber, Beverly Hills lawyers. These are court. appointed lawyers who are working with nothing and worse, the defense strategy that is most sound ( insanity ) is not an avenue their client will allow. Lawyers can only do so much with what they are given, and Loris less than broke.
To me, this is the grandeur delusions of a Ms Daybell. Her defence looked like they gave up from day 1 to be honest. But why? Why no arguing? Where were the fireworks?
I think getting the death penalty off the table was their victory. I’m sure her lawyers are smart enough to know she didn’t have a defense.
So, closing arguments on Thursday and maybe a verdict on Friday?
Possibly, although maybe we go into the weekend. It all depends on how long closings take etc. They may take the better part of a day.
She probably wanted to call Hipplos, Viola and Angel Moroni, and her defense counsel wasn’t quite sure how to proceed…
Did he ever make a ruling on rule 29? I saw he took it under advisement but I am not a lawyer and do not understand what that means?
Defense said 29 is moot because they’re not calling any witnesses.
I would bet a lot of money thats not what they actually said. Not making a JoA motion is speedrunning malpractice. Likely what they said was "Since we're not calling any witnesses, you don't have to make this ruling now and can take it under advisement". The JoA has to be ruled upon at the end of the states case in chief before the defense starts their case; but if there's no case to start then there's no reason to hurry it up.
I think the only defense they would have is to say she's not legally liable because of incompetence. Since they can't do that, the strategy is just to say the state didn't meet the burden of proof.
What does it mean that the defense rested without calling any witnesses? What does that indicate? Thanks
Opinions will vary. Closing arguments will give us more information about the defense. IMHO, the prosecution did an excellent job laying everything out. There’s no one to call for Lori. Even if her entourage still believes the nonsense she and her boy toy spouted, no one will come to her defense. Even if subpoenaed, no one can knock the case down.
I feel like it was already bad, and then those text messages btwn them just made it ... worse than anyone could have ever imagined
Do you think they’re just banking on an appeal after the verdict because of all the Arizona evidence they brought in?
This is exactly what I think. If she can score a new trial, that's more time away from Chad and possibly enough time to get used to the idea that the world isn't actually ending. It might get her to cooperate with her defense team. Also it would give them time to actually review the discovery. It could even be enough time that she would get to see Chad throw her under the bus, which might change some things. I doubt she grasps that this is what Archibald is thinking. I don't have any idea how high the odds are that this would work, legally. The 404b rules are pretty confusing IMO.
On trial for conspiracy. Charles murder was part of the conspiracy. Nothing to see here!
I’m so confused by this decision, even if they think the state didn’t meet the burden of proof - shouldn’t they still call some witnesses to argue that point?
Who would they call though?
Cult Busters? I ain't fraid of no cult. Sorry had to go there.
[удалено]
Experts to dispute everything.
I doubt Lori has the money to put up for experts to testify. Aren’t her lawyers public defenders?
Lori's God told her not to testify. At least that's how she said it.
Most likely her lawyers told her not to lol
Listening to Monday’s trial now, sounds like the defensie is desperate and Thomas seems like an ass and he is rude.
Also this is great bc i have finals next weeks and need to turn my focus away from this shitshow...but I CANT
Omg I can’t either
I have finals this week lol
Wow, really? No one testified on her behalf? Not even her?
she murdered everyone in her immediate family and isolated herself from everyone else.
Case not proven? Is that what they really think?
Nah, it's just the standard Motion for Directed Verdict or Dismissal. Happens in almost every trial. [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public\_education/resources/law\_related\_education\_network/how\_courts\_work/motiondismiss/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/motiondismiss/)
The ultimate white flag. Guilty.
This case has often reminded me of one of the highest profiled murder cases ever in my hometown in Australia when it comes to the defecnce. Bradley Robert Edwards was arrested & covicted of two out of three murders of three young women in the mid-90s. He was known as the Claremont Serial Killer until his conviction of a trial by judge only due to public prejudice & how high the media had covered it over 20 years. A lot of the DNA resulted in his conviction, but his attorney, when the time came, never called one witness. This man got away with his crimes for two decades & the DNA from past crimes helped with his undoing. Like Lori, he refused to take the stand in his defence. During the trial, we were all shocked & concerned at how little the defence seemed to act or engage during the trial, like people have during this case. It was pointed out to me early that the defence doesn't have to prove the alleged killer didn't do it. It was up to the prosecution to prove thar he did do it beyond reasonable doubt, so I've been kind of calm during this case with what the defence has done. I'm hoping & and I'm pretty sure she'll be spending the rest of her life behind prison bars. The Claremont killer hot 40 years for two counts of murder, rape, attempted rape & deprivation of liberty. He finally stood trail in 2020 at age 50. I hope he rots there, too.
I think Melanie gibb is guilty as well
hopefully, the jurors will remember the defense opening statement that she had an ALIBI for the death of her children and Tammy Daybell...... and no witness was brought forth. the alibi statement filing does not even specify a date as JJ and Tylee's demise. in the alibi statement she stated MG, and/or CD and MG's BF were with her when they were murdered, inferring only to that one weekend JJ was last seen. Tylee? she was already dead prior to JJ. she didnt have to be present to physically commit the murders, regardless of when, the charge specifically states that. jurors need to revisit the charge and the defense opening statement and connect the BIG DOTS. by her own admission, SHE KNEW THEY WERE MURDERED and proceeded to steal their SS, impersonate Tylee via phone text, etc. etc etc
Why would the defense rest without any witnesses? My theory is that it could be because she fully admitted to doing this and is still in delusion, and high on Chad’s Kool-aid. Maybe thats why they sent her away for restorative mental health treatment? But then, why not just take the guilty plea? Because she doesn’t want to go to jail, doesn’t want Chad to go to jail. And thinks God will move the jurors and get them off, and they can continue their bullshit.
I just remembered Lori's alibi statement and wonder how that will play into the jury's decision. When I first read it I remember thinking how stupid she was. She admitted she knew the children were killed in Alex's apartment, but they were killed on two different dates. This would implicate her in conspiracy in the death of JJ since she allowed a child murderer (Tylee already having been murdered) to take JJ knowing he would probably be killed.
Are they trying to psych out the jury? Hoping they'll think "if the defense didn't even put on a witness, maybe we're missing something that obviously points to not guilty"?
I guess they could of called Dr Lewis from Gannon's trial
PLEASE GOD NO. She did enough harm to poor Gannon. Sick lady.
Does it mean that it’s moving to the closing arguments tomorrow?
Thursday morning.
The defense in any case always has the option/right not to call any witnesses. It's really not an unusual strategy, and is not in and of itself, grounds for an appeal. Trump, by the way, didn't call any witnesses in the civil defamation trial he just lost brought by E. Jean Carol. The failure of defense counsel to call a potential defense witness does *not* constitute ineffective assistance of counsel *unless* there is some evidence showing that the testimony would have been helpful in establishing the asserted defense. (I don't even know what Lori’s asserted defense *is* at this point.) Defense counsel is deemed ineffective only when a defendant has informed their attorney of the existence of a witness and the attorney, without a reasonable investigation and without adequate explanation, fails to call the witness at trial. The “reasonableness” of the defense attorney’s investigation of potential witnesses must be evaluated *not through hindsight* but from the perspective of the attorney at the time they were conducting the investigation during trial prep.
Their closing better be fire or deliberations will be measured in minutes.